Let's Cut Taxes!

[Guest]

Who else think taxes are too burdensome?

If I were able to keep more of MY income, I would save more and be far less likely to burden my neighbors in my old age.

It's frustrating because it seems like Obama wants me to become reliant on the government, who I understand are my neighbors, for my welfare.

I was always taught that republicans teach you to become SELF-reliant, and the democrats teach you to become reliant.

I don't want to burden others.

[Guest]

Who else think taxes are too burdensome?

If I were able to keep more of MY income, I would save more and be far less likely to burden my neighbors in my old age.

It's frustrating because it seems like Obama wants me to become reliant on the government, who I understand are my neighbors, for my welfare.

I was always taught that republicans teach you to become SELF-reliant, and the democrats teach you to become reliant.

I don't want to burden others.
Where are we going to reduce spending for these tax cuts. We are already spending $10 for every $6 we take in and it going to blow up in coming years. Mathmatically it is not possible. We are kid of like bag ladies at a Mercedes dealer.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;103074

I was always taught that republicans teach you to become SELF-reliant, and the democrats teach you to become reliant.

QUOTE]

Well, the easiest answer - and probably one even you could understand - You were taught wrong.

Of course, it is understood that your post was just to incite others into making replies. :popcorn:

[Guest]

Scott Walker cut taxes in Wisconsin. See where their state budget is now in the toilet!

Difficult state budget a 'self-inflicted wound' : Wsj (http://host.madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/difficult-state-budget-a-self-inflicted-wound/article_0b2c23bf-6222-52dd-ba0f-3fafd7b8eb89.html)

[Guest]

Check out Kansas, one of the reddest states.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/11/pf/taxes/kansas-tax-cuts/

[Guest]

Check out Kansas, one of the reddest states.

Kansas tax cuts on trial amid huge budget deficit - Jan. 11, 2015 (http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/11/pf/taxes/kansas-tax-cuts/)

Seems all states are having budget difficulties. Wisconsin and Kansas in particular surround tax cuts for one thing but each state is different for sure. I am sure that there are Democratic states with problems as well, BUT...

EXPLAIN, the signifigance of naming states who have governors who are in a party different than you that might have a budget difficulty (in both states here Kansas and Wisconsin, they are just beginning the new discussions so time will tell), but what signifigance do you see in citing these examples. Is that to make YOUR party seem smarter or what ? Not sure I understand this kind of political discussion. If that is how you "keep score" that sure helps you as most states have Republican governors and thus the odds are in your favor for some difficulty and have you read about each of them ? Wisconsin is just beginning their hearings so not much to say...why is this so vital to you ?

[Guest]

If we eliminated all the food stamp programs sense obama has been in office and stop all the giveaways to other countries we would be able to balance the budget and drop taxes in a year. I have only collected unemployment once in my life and that was for two weeks. I knew people from Toledo Ohio that five generations collected welfare. Democrats tax you to death Republicans try to clean up the mess the dems cause. Then when the dems get back in control they start all over again. So why do you think the republican states have a hard time of it. I watched this for 60 years when I was 10 my father told me then stay away from the democrats. In your personal life you know if you over spend it will catch up to you and that is what we have right now. You have X number of dollars coming in you cant have XX number of dollars going out it never works.

[Guest]

Seems all states are having budget difficulties. Wisconsin and Kansas in particular surround tax cuts for one thing but each state is different for sure. I am sure that there are Democratic states with problems as well, BUT...

EXPLAIN, the signifigance of naming states who have governors who are in a party different than you that might have a budget difficulty (in both states here Kansas and Wisconsin, they are just beginning the new discussions so time will tell), but what signifigance do you see in citing these examples. Is that to make YOUR party seem smarter or what ? Not sure I understand this kind of political discussion. If that is how you "keep score" that sure helps you as most states have Republican governors and thus the odds are in your favor for some difficulty and have you read about each of them ? Wisconsin is just beginning their hearings so not much to say...why is this so vital to you ?

Hey, I'm from Illinois so I know deficits are on both sides. But Kansas is a clear cause and effect example. Also, you capitaized your party like you know what it is. Well, I used to be a Rockefeller Republican but that term is defunct now. Here I'm registered as an Independent. So I am not as polarized as you may think. Thankfully, I can see both sides without a strong disposition to either one.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;103074

I was always taught that republicans teach you to become SELF-reliant, and the democrats teach you to become reliant.

QUOTE]

Well, the easiest answer - and probably one even you could understand - You were taught wrong.



Darn my liberal public education!

[Guest]

Hey, I'm from Illinois so I know deficits are on both sides. But Kansas is a clear cause and effect example. Also, you capitaized your party like you know what it is. Well, I used to be a Rockefeller Republican but that term is defunct now. Here I'm registered as an Independent. So I am not as polarized as you may think. Thankfully, I can see both sides without a strong disposition to either one.

The capitalization of YOUR PARTY was meant to signify the complete folly of such generalizations of states. Each state has their own set of problems and a random selection of R or D has very little, and basically NO significance. Seems with a few Rep govs mulling running the Dems will be attacking their states in the months to follow.

YOUR PARTY was not aimed at an individual, but those short sighted who feel a political party is the answer.

[Guest]

There is no secret to balancing ANY budget!
Do not spend beyond what is available to spend.
We all do it every day in our life style. And the banks will ONLY lend what you can afford to pay back....which comes out of what is available to spend.

The government, state and local have the privilege of spending more than they have with no accountability they will never give up their pet programs or stop the stupid spending.
If you want to entertain yourself just google federal government paying to store minted monies that are not in use. Prepare yourself for a real eye opener.

This is only one example.

I personally participated in the lead for turning around troubled companies ($500,000,000 companies and above).
Same problem EVERY time. Cash flow and reducing spending to be below what revenues CAN SUPPORT.....no matter what takes.

Another illuminating exercise? How many people in the government are trained in balance sheets and income statements?

They do not know closely followed by they do not care.

When they purpose budget cuts they ALWAYS choose programs that purposely affect we the people. NEVER the frivolous spending.

This is all allowed and condoned by the LIV's who also don't know or care.......as long as it does not affect them.

The government budget shut down game is an insult to ANY informed responsible person at home or in corporate A Merida!

[Guest]

Government spending should be under harsh scrutinization every day, but now that we are under these trying financial times, taxes should be raised so we can keep current programs running, then when stabilized, cut those programs we can, allowing us to then cut taxes. Cutting taxes in a downturn would only make the economy worse.

[Guest]

There is no secret to balancing ANY budget!
Do not spend beyond what is available to spend.
We all do it every day in our life style. And the banks will ONLY lend what you can afford to pay back....which comes out of what is available to spend.

The government, state and local have the privilege of spending more than they have with no accountability they will never give up their pet programs or stop the stupid spending.
If you want to entertain yourself just google federal government paying to store minted monies that are not in use. Prepare yourself for a real eye opener.

This is only one example.

I personally participated in the lead for turning around troubled companies ($500,000,000 companies and above).
Same problem EVERY time. Cash flow and reducing spending to be below what revenues CAN SUPPORT.....no matter what takes.

Another illuminating exercise? How many people in the government are trained in balance sheets and income statements?

They do not know closely followed by they do not care.

When they purpose budget cuts they ALWAYS choose programs that purposely affect we the people. NEVER the frivolous spending.

This is all allowed and condoned by the LIV's who also don't know or care.......as long as it does not affect them.

The government budget shut down game is an insult to ANY informed responsible person at home or in corporate A Merida!

Your post is the most factual on this thread. The finger pointing between Dems and Reps is exactly why this continues year after year. I also come out of the private sector and very familiar with a budgeting approach called zero base. It takes leadership to do this and clearly there are no leaders in public sector as of this writing. I did not vote for Obama but was very interested and impressed when he said it was immoral to spend money our children had to pay back. So much for leadership.

[Guest]

The reason to specifically cite Kansas and Wisconsin is that the political decisions that were made in those two states to dramatically cut taxes was explained on an economic theory that the cutting of taxes raises revenue due to the economic stimulation it produces. As a result of cutting taxes there is a paradoxical increase in state income as well as the well theorized trickle down of income from those taxpayers who benefit from the tax cuts to those who are not in the tax bracket to benefit. Both of these economic theories are shown not be correct by these real world examples.

[Guest]

Why not start over? Sliding tax rate. Eliminate corporate subsidies, enforce anti trust laws at every level. Then you will have a truly Free Market.

Today we have a false economy pandering to special interest groups. There are no job creators. Jobs are created by demand and the ability to meet that demand and post a profit, thus promoting investment. It's all pretty simple in concept. The problem our economy is out of our control and has been taken over by corporate America. Price fixing is rampant. I truly believe in a free market and we haven't had one for many years. It is not partisan politics because both are equally at fault. Lobbyists play both ends against the middle.

[Guest]

Why not start over? Sliding tax rate. Eliminate corporate subsidies, enforce anti trust laws at every level. Then you will have a truly Free Market.

Today we have a false economy pandering to special interest groups. There are no job creators. Jobs are created by demand and the ability to meet that demand and post a profit, thus promoting investment. It's all pretty simple in concept. The problem our economy is out of our control and has been taken over by corporate America. Price fixing is rampant. I truly believe in a free market and we haven't had one for many years. It is not partisan politics because both are equally at fault. Lobbyists play both ends against the middle.

The problem is the prostitution of our representatives in government including the president, congress, the supreme court, state and local governments of the original notion/concept/commitment to be of and for the people.

Their priority is re-election first and foremost.
Second is their personal gain/stature.
Third is lobbyists and special interest groups.
Fourth is their party.
And somewhere in the rush to do the above they fake representing the needs and will of we the people.

Kinda the way gangsters operate.

[Guest]

I just don't see any reason for having the IRS. Just think about how much money the US taxpayer pays just to fund the IRS. If all taxes were paid with the sales tax and property tax, we wouldn't even need to hire tax preparers or pull our hair out this time of year. Everybody would pay their fair share then. We don't need the IRS.

[Guest]

I just don't see any reason for having the IRS. Just think about how much money the US taxpayer pays just to fund the IRS. If all taxes were paid with the sales tax and property tax, we wouldn't even need to hire tax preparers or pull our hair out this time of year. Everybody would pay their fair share then. We don't need the IRS.

Almost 100,000 employees.
One would think with the advent and increased use of electronic filing the number would have gone down in recent years.

Another major beaurocracy with poor customer service to we the people.

Interesting article about IRS:

10 Incredible Facts You Probably Don't Know About the IRS (http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/02/08/10-incredible-facts-you-probably-didnt-know-about.aspx)

This is what we get when we allow insider, politics as usual candidates.

[Guest]

Almost 100,000 employees.
One would think with the advent and increased use of electronic filing the number would have gone down in recent years.

Another major beaurocracy with poor customer service to we the people.

Interesting article about IRS:

10 Incredible Facts You Probably Don't Know About the IRS (http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/02/08/10-incredible-facts-you-probably-didnt-know-about.aspx)

This is what we get when we allow insider, politics as usual candidates.

With budget cuts, the number of employees have actually dropped by over 10% since 2010 during Obama's tenure. I know I have always had very good service during any audits and disputes. Can you describe some of your poor service events?

[Guest]

The USA does not need the IRS. Where did you get your 10% number?

[Guest]

The USA does not need the IRS. Where did you get your 10% number?

See Cuts in IRS Budget Have Compromised Taxpayer Service and Weakened Enforcement — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=4156)

Budget cut from 13.2 in 2010 to 11.3

Personnel cut from 94600 in 2010 to 84200

If the IRS did not exist, who would enforce the tax laws passed by Congress so that our government is properly funded? I understand most people think we would not voluntarily pay for our government if there was no oversight.

[Guest]

I just don't see any reason for having the IRS. Just think about how much money the US taxpayer pays just to fund the IRS. If all taxes were paid with the sales tax and property tax, we wouldn't even need to hire tax preparers or pull our hair out this time of year. Everybody would pay their fair share then. We don't need the IRS.

I really doubt that the entire government, both Federal and State, could run just on sales tax and property tax. Don't forget the billions for military.

What percent sales tax (both national and state) would you propose?

[Guest]

The problem is the prostitution of our representatives in government including the president, congress, the supreme court, state and local governments of the original notion/concept/commitment to be of and for the people.

Their priority is re-election first and foremost.
Second is their personal gain/stature.
Third is lobbyists and special interest groups.
Fourth is their party.
And somewhere in the rush to do the above they fake representing the needs and will of we the people.

Kinda the way gangsters operate.

Last I knew about gangsters - they all knew what their jobs were; they did what they were told to do; there was no war on women; and their families never went into debt!

[Guest]

I just don't see any reason for having the IRS. Just think about how much money the US taxpayer pays just to fund the IRS. If all taxes were paid with the sales tax and property tax, we wouldn't even need to hire tax preparers or pull our hair out this time of year. Everybody would pay their fair share then. We don't need the IRS.

I venture to say that the problem in the statement in bold type would be one's definition of "fair".

[Guest]

Just think about how much money is wasted every year to pay IRS employees and the accountants to fill out your taxes. The IRS has proven over the last few years how corrupt they are. Sales taxes are the most fair, the more money you make the more you spend, thus the more taxes you would pay. Simple. Yes, Sales taxes would increase.

[Guest]

Just think about how much money is wasted every year to pay IRS employees and the accountants to fill out your taxes. The IRS has proven over the last few years how corrupt they are. Sales taxes are the most fair, the more money you make the more you spend, thus the more taxes you would pay. Simple. Yes, Sales taxes would increase.

So who would enforce these increased sales tax rates? Would they increase from 7% to say 20% or more? So now your $20,000 per year person would now pay $4,000 in taxes. Would these taxes be on the most basic of items to support the lack of income tax rates? How much more would be lost on the underground economy?

[Guest]

sales taxes are one of the favorite mechanisms of the rich to extract money from the poor for upward transfer. the notion that it is fair is risible. the rich spend increasingly less of their income on sales taxed products as their income increases. the poor of course have no option to avoid sales taxes so their effective tax rate is the full equivalent of the sales tax while of course the wealthy will have a much lower effective tax rate. goody for them, as usual

[Guest]

sales taxes are one of the favorite mechanisms of the rich to extract money from the poor for upward transfer.

:1rotfl:


Without a doubt, that is one of the dumbest things I've ever read.

The "rich" want a handout from the poor? Maybe caviar stamps? Mercedes assistance? free helicopter for the yacht?

:1rotfl:

[Guest]

The following is a study of the effect of taxes on income groups of states with flat or no income tax.

Top 10 Most Regressive Tax States (http://www.thinkadvisor.com/2013/02/05/top-10-most-regressive-tax-states)

[Guest]

The following is a study of the effect of taxes on income groups of states with flat or no income tax.

Top 10 Most Regressive Tax States (http://www.thinkadvisor.com/2013/02/05/top-10-most-regressive-tax-states)

It would be hard to find a more hard-left article on taxes. Even accounting for half my brain tied behind my back, there are so many glaring omissions and obfuscations on page 1 as to make it not worthy of my time to read on.

In short, because the poor pay $2 in total taxes, and the rich only pay $25 million, percentage-wise the effective rate is -.00087%. It's just NOT FAIR!

More socialist garbage disguised as journalism with cutesy investment graphics feigning a legitimate financial site.

I give it the old four-Pinocchio BS rating!

:1rotfl:

[Guest]

Oh let me guess:

One guy pays $12 in taxes

the other guy pays $100,000,000

But, because the poor schlepp paying $100 MILLION is paying less of an effective RATE he's not paying his "fair share"! Oh please Lord, give me patience with the incredibly ignorant, lazy takers. (This was the argument used against Romney last election.)

[Guest]

Oh let me guess:

One guy pays $12 in taxes

the other guy pays $100,000,000

But, because the poor schlepp paying $100 MILLION is paying less of an effective RATE he's not paying his "fair share"! Oh please Lord, give me patience with the incredibly ignorant, lazy takers. (This was the argument used against Romney last election.)

Enough people agreed with that argument in that Romney lost the election. It appears that you are in that minority that think if someone who is fortunate enough to pay the top marginal income tax tax rate by law, he is somehow being taken advantage. Not all people who are not in the top marginal income tax rate are ignorant lazy takers. However, there are many who feel that the world is taking advantage of their limited success and are still bitter.

[Guest]

Enough people agreed with that argument in that Romney lost the election. It appears that you are in that minority that think if someone who is fortunate enough to pay the top marginal income tax tax rate by law, he is somehow being taken advantage. Not all people who are not in the top marginal income tax rate are ignorant lazy takers. However, there are many who feel that the world is taking advantage of their limited success and are still bitter.

Oh dear god... another that thinks someone is "fortunate enough" to be blessed to be forced to succumb to the highest confiscation rate.

This is simply the lazy majority of liberal voters full of envy penalizing the hard-working small pizza parlor owner they call "rich". The pizza parlor owner works his fanny off to provide a good product, good service, at a competitive price and still he is begrudged for his success.

Heard the libs want to push the highest income tax rates upon those singles earning $75,000 and couples earning $150,000. Yep, those evil "rich" people!

The libs are generally lazy, want fee stuff from those who work, and envy the hard work of the successful and want to penalize them for their success. That's really the bottom line - simply penalize anyone who's made a success of their life. It's pure envy.

[Guest]

Oh dear god... another that thinks someone is "fortunate enough" to be blessed to be forced to succumb to the highest confiscation rate.

This is simply the lazy majority of liberal voters full of envy penalizing the hard-working small pizza parlor owner they call "rich". The pizza parlor owner works his fanny off to provide a good product, good service, at a competitive price and still he is begrudged for his success.

Heard the libs want to push the highest income tax rates upon those singles earning $75,000 and couples earning $150,000. Yep, those evil "rich" people!

The libs are generally lazy, want fee stuff from those who work, and envy the hard work of the successful and want to penalize them for their success. That's really the bottom line - simply penalize anyone who's made a success of their life. It's pure envy.

That attitude and bitterness may be true for a pizza owner who ran for President, however, Starbucks owners pay a decent wage, offer health insurance and believe in sharing the wealth with people who make them successful. This success has translated in a stock price that has gone from $20 to almost $100 in 5 years. I am sure those who participated in this success would not mind sharing in that success to support the environment which afforded them the opportunity to be successful. I hope you have had that opportunity.

[Guest]

That attitude and bitterness may be true for a pizza owner who ran for President, however, Starbucks owners pay a decent wage, offer health insurance and believe in sharing the wealth with people who make them successful. This success has translated in a stock price that has gone from $20 to almost $100 in 5 years. I am sure those who participated in this success would not mind sharing in that success to support the environment which afforded them the opportunity to be successful. I hope you have had that opportunity.

As you know, there are very few Starbucks franchises (individual small business owners).

So, why are you comparing a HUGE corporation with a small pizza parlor owner? Small business employs the majority of citizens in this country. You obviously have no clue of the margins a small business, whether pizza parlor, photographer, hair stylist operate under.

[Guest]

As you know, there are very few Starbucks franchises (individual small business owners).

So, why are you comparing a HUGE corporation with a small pizza parlor owner? Small business employs the majority of citizens in this country. You obviously have no clue of the margins a small business, whether pizza parlor, photographer, hair stylist operate under.

Please provide the citations as to where you found information on "the majority" of citizens are employed by small business vs large corporations. Please provide the numbers and the percentages, too.

If you cannot do this, your post does not mean a thing.

[Guest]

Please provide the citations as to where you found information on "the majority" of citizens are employed by small business vs large corporations. Please provide the numbers and the percentages, too.

If you cannot do this, your post does not mean a thing.

Google is your friend:

"Fully 99 percent of all independent enterprises in the country employ fewer than 500 people. These small enterprises account for 52 percent of all U.S. workers, according to the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). Some 19.6 million Americans work for companies employing fewer than 20 workers, 18.4 million work for firms employing between 20 and 99 workers, and 14.6 million work for firms with 100 to 499 workers. By contrast, 47.7 million Americans work for firms with 500 or more employees."


Small Business in the United States (http://economics.about.com/od/smallbigbusiness/a/us_business.htm)

[Guest]

As you know, there are very few Starbucks franchises (individual small business owners).

So, why are you comparing a HUGE corporation with a small pizza parlor owner? Small business employs the majority of citizens in this country. You obviously have no clue of the margins a small business, whether pizza parlor, photographer, hair stylist operate under.

I have several friends who are small business owners. They have told me that their employees have a half life of six months on minimum wage. However, as a result of these short term employees, these owners do quite well. Therefore, it appears that as an employee, one should work for a large corporation who tends to have better pay and benefits than a small business where the churn of employees benefits the owner to the detriment of his employees. I wonder how a large bureaucratic employer can manage these increased margins to the benefit of the employees?

[Guest]

I have several friends who are small business owners. They have told me that their employees have a half life of six months on minimum wage. However, as a result of these short term employees, these owners do quite well. Therefore, it appears that as an employee, one should work for a large corporation who tends to have better pay and benefits than a small business where the churn of employees benefits the owner to the detriment of his employees. I wonder how a large bureaucratic employer can manage these increased margins to the benefit of the employees?

You may have an over estimated view of how much larger employers spend on benefits. They have been severly scaled back over the years. General Electric and General Motors were a couple of the top benefit providers.
No I don't have a link. No I don't have any numbers that support the comment.

Only having lived through first hand experience.

Just google it if you have an urgent need.
Or ask someone who worked for these companies in the 60's through the 80's.

[Guest]

http://www.pionline.com/article/20140203/PRINT/302039977/corporate-pension-plans-mark-sad-milestone

[Guest]

You may have an over estimated view of how much larger employers spend on benefits. They have been severly scaled back over the years. General Electric and General Motors were a couple of the top benefit providers.
No I don't have a link. No I don't have any numbers that support the comment.

Only having lived through first hand experience.

Just google it if you have an urgent need.
Or ask someone who worked for these companies in the 60's through the 80's.

I have not over estimated how much large employers but am well aware of the benefits that are not provided to by many small minimum wage employers. They provide no health and dental benefits, 401k with matching contributions, vacation time and paid holidays, life insureance and the list goes on. For example, GM provides all of these.

General Motors Benefits Packages | GM Retirement Benefits (http://careers.gm.com/about-gm/benefits.html)

[Guest]

I have not over estimated how much large employers but am well aware of the benefits that are not provided to by many small minimum wage employers. They provide no health and dental benefits, 401k with matching contributions, vacation time and paid holidays, life insureance and the list goes on. For example, GM provides all of these.

General Motors Benefits Packages | GM Retirement Benefits (http://careers.gm.com/about-gm/benefits.html)

Your message is muddled. Are you arguing that small business owners SHOULD provide all these benefits to minimum wage earners?

[Guest]

Ten years from now when the people are retirement age but so few have any pensions as the large corporations have discontinued them leaving only the few union jobs retirees and of course the wildly over-pensioned military as having enough projected income to afford a home here, you will see the home prices coming down. Ask around on your street what the source of ongoing income is for most of your neighbors. Ex-GE, ex-ATand T, ex-Ford, ex-military, ex-cop, ex-teacher will make up a significant number of them. And other than the military, those pensions are being attacked and cut for the next wave of employees.

[Guest]

Ten years from now when the people are retirement age but so few have any pensions as the large corporations have discontinued them leaving only the few union jobs retirees and of course the wildly over-pensioned military as having enough projected income to afford a home here, you will see the home prices coming down. Ask around on your street what the source of ongoing income is for most of your neighbors. Ex-GE, ex-ATand T, ex-Ford, ex-military, ex-cop, ex-teacher will make up a significant number of them. And other than the military, those pensions are being attacked and cut for the next wave of employees.

Sounds like people need to adapt and save enough money to produce a secure income stream in retirement. That's what all my friends are doing. I think it's fairly commonplace.

I hope you are not suggesting it is your neighbors' responsibility to provide a secure retirement income for everyone.

[Guest]

Your message is muddled. Are you arguing that small business owners SHOULD provide all these benefits to minimum wage earners?

Yes, I think they should provide a living wage w/benefits rather depending on the government to supplement the small business owners employee's compensation. $18,000/yr full time w/no benefits just doesn't cur it.

[Guest]

Yes, I think they should provide a living wage w/benefits rather depending on the government to supplement the small business owners employee's compensation. $18,000/yr full time w/no benefits just doesn't cur it.

I think it's a terrific idea, conceptually.

In reality, are YOU willing to pay $30 for a hamburger or sandwich, $100 for a pizza, $25 for a beer?

[Guest]

Yes, I think they should provide a living wage w/benefits rather depending on the government to supplement the small business owners employee's compensation. $18,000/yr full time w/no benefits just doesn't cur it.
Your heart is correct but history tells us this is why we lost our world leading manufacturing base. We have priced ourselves out of world market. Americans don't even buy American products. Our fastest growing industy is healthcare and I'm not sure that produces wealth for country, moves it around I would guess.

[Guest]

I think it's a terrific idea, conceptually.

In reality, are YOU willing to pay $30 for a hamburger or sandwich, $100 for a pizza, $25 for a beer?


It's strange that the country's largest employer, Wal-Mart, has figured out a way to increase the minimum wage without raising prices, so they say. Same with Target, Costco, Starbucks, and many other companies.

[Guest]

It's strange that the country's largest employer, Wal-Mart, has figured out a way to increase the minimum wage without raising prices, so they say. Same with Target, Costco, Starbucks, and many other companies.

Strange indeed! :loco:

Back to reality... something obviously has to give; Profits at first, then stockholders grumble, then prices are raised to restore previous profitability. Then price elasticity enters into the equation. How many will purchase a 12-pack of diapers for $100? :$: Not as many, so prices are reduced and "savings" found elsewhere. Ah, enter labor. Since we can't reduce hourly rate, we'll reduce head count to restore profitability. "Do more with less" suddenly becomes the new mantra.

There's no free ride...

(At least that's what my economics classes taught me.)

[Guest]

Strange indeed! :loco:

Back to reality... something obviously has to give; Profits at first, then stockholders grumble, then prices are raised to restore previous profitability. Then price elasticity enters into the equation. How many will purchase a 12-pack of diapers for $100? :$: Not as many, so prices are reduced and "savings" found elsewhere. Ah, enter labor. Since we can't reduce hourly rate, we'll reduce head count to restore profitability. "Do more with less" suddenly becomes the new mantra.

There's no free ride...

(At least that's what my economics classes taught me.)


One would expect that Wal-Mart has been in business long enough and been successful enough and have experts on their staff who might be able to figure this stuff out. The same goes with the other companies.

[Guest]

One would expect that Wal-Mart has been in business long enough and been successful enough and have experts on their staff who might be able to figure this stuff out. The same goes with the other companies.

I'm trying to connect the dots you're dropping.

Are you suggesting that Wal Mart could have previously paid much higher wages without negatively impacting earnings, but chose not to? Why do you believe they chose not to?

Or... are you suggesting they could have previously raised all their prices and not impacted sales? If so, why didn't they do this previously and make so much more profit?

[Guest]

I'm trying to connect the dots you're dropping.

Are you suggesting that Wal Mart could have previously paid much higher wages without negatively impacting earnings, but chose not to? Why do you believe they chose not to?

Or... are you suggesting they could have previously raised all their prices and not impacted sales? If so, why didn't they do this previously and make so much more profit?

Walmart raises pay well above minimum wage - Feb. 19, 2015 (http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/19/news/companies/walmart-wages/)

There are 387,000 results if you google Wal-Mart raising minimum wage. Take your pick of your favorite source and get the answers you seek. The same for other employers.

[Guest]

Walmart raises pay well above minimum wage - Feb. 19, 2015 (http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/19/news/companies/walmart-wages/)

There are 387,000 results if you google Wal-Mart raising minimum wage. Take your pick of your favorite source and get the answers you seek. The same for other employers.
Thanks...I did as you suggested. WOW... sure sounds liking raising the minimum wage is going to be a HUGE DISASTER!

Some quotes from the article:


"However, fast-food restaurants operate on very small profit margins; they could only afford such wages by raising prices—significantly. Higher prices would, in turn, drive customers away, forcing even larger price increases to cover costs. Ultimately, the average fast-food restaurant would have to raise prices by nearly two-fifths. This would cause sales to drop by more than one-third, and profits to fall by more than three-quarters."

"Fast-food restaurants could not pay this additional amount out of their profits. The typical restaurant has a profit margin of just 3 percent before taxes.[4] That works out to approximately $27,000 a year[5]—less than the annual cost of hiring one full-time employee at $15 an hour.[6] In order to raise wages, fast-food restaurants must raise prices."


"Most studies find that a 1 percent increase in prices causes sales to fall by almost 1 percent. Larger price increases cause sales to fall by proportionally larger amounts."


"The higher labor costs would initially force fast-food restaurants to raise their prices by 15 percent, which would drive down sales by 14 percent. This would force restaurants to raise prices again, pushing sales down further. In equilibrium the average fast-food restaurant would have to raise prices 38 percent.[10] Prices would rise roughly twice as much as the initial increase in labor costs.[11] Total sales and hours worked would both fall by 36 percent. Fast-food restaurant owners would also have to accept a 77 percent reduction in profits in order to stay in business—leaving them with an average profit of just $6,100 a year per store. Otherwise they would have to raise prices to an extent that would drive away their customer base.
These changes would hurt consumers. Americans would face higher fast-food prices, putting a dent into the budgets of everyone who frequently eats fast food—primarily moderate-income consumers, not the wealthy, who do not regularly eat fast food."


"Labor Substitution

Such an increase in prices and decrease in profits would devastate fast-food restaurants. Many owners would find that taking on the risk of operating a restaurant—and potentially losing money—is not worth profit margins of less than 1 percent. Many fast-food restaurants would respond by restructuring dramatically in order to use less labor.
Fast-food restaurants could reduce labor costs by (a) substituting entry-level workers for more skilled and more productive workers and (b) replacing human workers with machines. Fast-food jobs involve many routine tasks that are particularly susceptible to automation. For example, McDonald’s recently announced plans to adopt iPhone ordering and paying—making the jobs of many cashiers redundant.[12] Inventors in California have created an automatic hamburger-cooking machine that cooks 360 hamburgers in an hour without human intervention.[13] Artificially increasing fast-food wages would significantly hasten the adoption of such technology—flat out eliminating many positions in the fast-food industry."


Conclusion

Raising the minimum wage in the fast-food industry to $15 an hour would hurt consumers and workers. Without major operational changes, fast-food restaurants would have to raise prices by 38 percent while seeing their profits fall by 77 percent. This would cause many restaurants to close and many others to make extensive use of labor-saving technology—eliminating many of the entry-level jobs that inexperienced workers need to get ahead.


How Higher Minimum Wage for Fast-Food Workers Can Affect Prices (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/09/higher-fast-food-wages-higher-fast-food-prices)

[Guest]

What has just been presented will only be understood by those who have a working knowledge of an income statement.

For every pay increase to have no effect on the profitability of the business there will have to be a dollar for dollar increase in revenues which ONLY results in increased prices to the consumer.

[Guest]

The Heritage Foundation is not one I would have selected, but according to them Wal-Mart, etc will soon be out of business. Either way they lose. If they don't raise the minimum wage, nobody will work there and if they do, they'll price themselves right out of business.

[Guest]

The Heritage Foundation is not one I would have selected

Why not? Because they live in reality-land and not economic fantasyland where all of the liberals live?

If you've got all the answers to these vexing economic questions it would be criminal to withhold them from humanity.

Tell you what...I'll spread some fairy dust on our economic trail of understanding ahead and then we pay everyone a super-duper...and I mean super-dee-licious living wage and all the hungry people buy all their stuff for less.

Why was that so hard? You mean republicans! :grumpy:

[Guest]

I think it's a terrific idea, conceptually.

In reality, are YOU willing to pay $30 for a hamburger or sandwich, $100 for a pizza, $25 for a beer?

Would you spend $5.60 for a Big Mac if it would help the working poor?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/business/international/living-wages-served-in-denmark-fast-food-restaurants.html?_r=0

[Guest]

Its your patriotic duty to pay taxes or at least that's what was promulgated at the 2012 Democratic National Convention. To which I respond "baloney".

Am I unpatriotic? No. I am a realists and it is evident that the Sheriffs of Nottingham under the guise of multiple Prince Johns are hustling villagers all around the country.

I had years of preparing budgets and there are clever ways of hiding money even when it is accompanied with a written rationale. I point this out because politicians and lobbyist are masters of deception when it comes to budgets.

the reality is that the so called budget being proposed is so overloaded with water over the years that if politicians didn't raise it a cent they still have plenty money to work with for years. So why do they claim without funds government cannot operate?

Simple they mis-spend, abuse, and fraud the system. They mark funds for one thing and use it for another. They spend taxpayers money apparently believing it grows on trees.

Worse yet they have no checks and balances nor measurements of performance to determine if the program is working. They institute programs that go on for infinity without ryhme or reason

The only way to cut taxes is to cut spending and the most effective way to cut spending is to shrink government. The Dept of Energy & Education have yielded us nothing but interference. The EPA is so political that its possible are nonsensical. The IRS is outlaw...I could go on but to what avail

Unpopular is the state of public unions which have the potential to bankrupt a number of states beginning with Illinois and is a tremendous burden as respects federal workers. In the private sector corporations went to cash base retirement plans because they saw the writing on the wall. they demanded more participation/contribution from workers. Not so when public unions because they yield votes and so the taxpayer who does not have the right to negotiate a public unions contract is stuck with the costs.
Its just plain maddening

Add to that the cutouts made for favorites such as the NFL, etc who make billions but are tax-exempt

So again I do not believe it is my patriotic duty to pay taxes to irresponsible people who will waste my money and build bridges to nowhere so they can get re-elected. and just think politicians are now considering adding a VAT which in many European countries surpassing 21%

citizens once revolted because of taxation without representation and whether you believe it or not its as true now as it was then

[Guest]

The above post obviously proves Global Warming. That post shows the sap is running early this year!

[Guest]

Would you spend $5.60 for a Big Mac if it would help the working poor?[/url]

What happened to the past help when the minimum wage went from $1.50 over the years to $10.00???

Very, very simple. Increased wages = increased cost to suppliers = increased prices to consumers = need for more increased wages to compensate for the new increased prices = increased cost to suppliers = increased prices to consumers = need more increased wages.

GET IT?

[Guest]

What happened to the past help when the minimum wage went from $1.50 over the years to $10.00???

Very, very simple. Increased wages = increased cost to suppliers = increased prices to consumers = need for more increased wages to compensate for the new increased prices = increased cost to suppliers = increased prices to consumers = need more increased wages.

GET IT?


Based on this analogy, how does anyone explain the success of Costco? There starting minimum wage is $15 compared to Sam's $7.00 per hr. Given a choice of shopping at Costco or Sam's, which store would provide better customer service, the store paying a decent salary or the store paying such a pitiful salary that it's employees qualify for food stamps?

And how do the prices at these two stores compare?

Another good example of stores being able to pay a living wage is Publix. They have always paid well and provide full benefits, including health care and stock options. Publix is always ranked as one of the best employers in Florida. If their prices were out of line, they would not be able to stay in business.

[Guest]

This article will shed some light on the differences between Sam's Club and Costco.

Why Wal-Mart Will Never Pay Like Costco - Bloomberg View (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-08-27/why-walmart-will-never-pay-like-costco)

While we all tend to think of them as alike their strategy and floor offerings are not.

[Guest]

Walmart = Sam's Club.

[Guest]

What happened to the past help when the minimum wage went from $1.50 over the years to $10.00???

Very, very simple. Increased wages = increased cost to suppliers = increased prices to consumers = need for more increased wages to compensate for the new increased prices = increased cost to suppliers = increased prices to consumers = need more increased wages.

GET IT?

Before the civil War, the cotton and tobacco farmers paid no wages. They must have done very well and the cost to consumers must have been very low. Probably will never get back to that.

Get it?

[Guest]

Before the civil War, the cotton and tobacco farmers paid no wages. They must have done very well and the cost to consumers must have been very low. Probably will never get back to that.

Get it?

Nice try....how about back to the subject?

[Guest]

Nice try....how about back to the subject?

That's right. The subject is that taxes are burdensome and some don't want to pay those services. Employees are burdensome and some want to pay them minimum wage. I guess some just want don't want to pay anybody else for their services. Sound selfish to me.